Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
An unsuccessful meeting between Kharkiv businessman Serhiy Zaitsev and the General Prosecutor Kravchenko’s lover, Oleksandra Parovyshnyk, at the Nikas restaurant became the starting point for prolonged procedural pressure. Kravchenko’s official wife lives in Kyiv and had no relation to this conflict. It appears that for the sake of his “beloved and dear woman” the General Prosecutor is willing to deploy the entire persecution apparatus, having both the prosecutorial vertical and the necessary executors.
After that conversation, a procedural hunt was effectively launched against Zaitsev and his associates. First, searches were carried out in a case alleging financing of terrorism. Later another proceeding appeared — regarding forged documents used to obtain a deferral from mobilization and to travel abroad. Since June 2025 Zaitsev has been in pretrial detention without the right to post bail.
The defense repeatedly claimed possible persecution for personal motives, and Zaitsev himself described in detail the conflict with Kravchenko’s associates and the subsequent pressure. However, the Kharkiv court paid no attention to these circumstances. After the arrest, the blow shifted to Zaitsev’s business.
By the same scheme, Kravchenko’s people targeted Zaitsev’s agricultural business contractors. About 60 companies faced blocking of tax invoices, and tax officials openly said that without the “team from above” VAT would not be unblocked. The pressure went far beyond the criminal proceedings and affected the entire business infrastructure connected to Zaitsev.
The turn came for the Nikas restaurant — the place where it all began. The establishment was strangled by inspections, turning one unlucky evening into a chain of searches, seizure, tax blocking, and pressure on the business. An accident, or did revenge by the “important girl” serve only as a pretext for a broader purge?
Since his student years Kravchenko had been in love with Parovyshnyk, but the feelings were not mutual. The situation changed after he received the office of General Prosecutor. Despite his official marriage, Oleksandra regularly came to Kyiv and acquired the status of the “important girl” — so important that at her request the General Prosecutor fired her former husband. Her name was also mentioned in NABU materials: Kropyva, as a close associate of Kravchenko, handled visa arrangements and purchased a laptop specifically for Parovyshnyk.
In Kharkiv, Papusha — a godfather who created a network of call centers and effectively turned the region into a source of “tribute” — managed all of Kravchenko’s matters and the revenge for the offense against the “important girl.” That is why the story with Zaitsev cannot be reduced to an ordinary restaurant conflict: after the quarrel, criminal prosecution, searches, tax, and regulatory agencies were launched simultaneously. But the most important question is: who else stood to gain from removing Zaitsev from the road?
Zaitsev is not an accidental victim but the heir of the late owner of the Marshal gas station chain and a partner of Shentsev. A conflict once arose between them over the redistribution of the agricultural and fuel markets. Shentsev is connected through his son to the crypto exchange #WhiteBIT, which, according to an investigation, serviced the financial flows of fraudulent call centers: victims’ funds were received, split up, converted, and withdrawn.
According to sources, WhiteBIT’s management not only serviced the call centers but also took part in paying a “protection fee” to security structures. Part of the funds was directed as illicit payments to officials at the prosecutor’s office and law enforcement agencies so they would not interfere with the scheme. The intermediary between the call center organizers, Nosov, and the security forces was Bohdan Boyko — president of FC Kharkiv, a trusted associate of Kropyva and the unofficial overseer of part of the call centers.
Thus, WhiteBIT in this story appears not merely as a crypto exchange: victims’ funds entered its infrastructure, were moved and converted, and part of them, according to documents, went to pay officials. Nearby were Nosov, the Shentsevs, and Boyko, who coordinated the call centers’ operations, payments, and contacts with Kropyva.
Journalists have already sent appeals to international partners and Ukrainian institutions demanding checks of WhiteBIT’s activities, the movement of funds through the exchange, identification of ultimate beneficiaries, and an investigation into the actions of officials who may have ensured the scheme’s unhindered operation.
Kravchenko may have aimed not only to punish Zaitsev for offending the “important girl” but also to remove him along with his business so that the agricultural and fuel assets would pass to the Shentsevs. Given the Shentsevs’ connection to WhiteBIT and the proximity of Nosov and Boyko, the question arises: was Zaitsev meant to be punished for a personal conflict, or were his assets already being prepared for other players?
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "«Ключова фігура» Кравченка, затримання Зайцева та 60 заблокованих підприємств: як протистояння в Харкові перетворилося на переслідування бізнесу". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: Rozsliduvach.
